Lincoln Douglas format. Only serious debaters please.
Affirmative
Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.
Targeting killing is a necessary tool of war that can be helpful during times of war. This tool has been around for many centuries.

"Targeted killing" can be defined as the killing of certain individuals away from battle zones using military means, including missiles, bombs and commando raids. The missiles and bombs are often delivered by drone aircraft. In other words it is defined as the premeditated and precise killing.

"Morally permissible" dictionary.com says it is allowable pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical.

"Foreign policy" dictionary.com describes it as a policy pursued by a nation in its dealings with other nations, designed to achieve national objectives.

My value is protection. My value is protection because my value criterion is maximizing safety of people and limiting death of the innocent.

My first contention is that targeted killing can protect the lives of soldiers. With today's modern technology there are many ways for the lives of soldier's to be protected when they are after a military leader or a terrorist in another country. For example world war two. Suppose if Hitler was tracked early in the war and targeted killing was used. That would've ended the war quicker in the European theater. It would've saved thousands of soldiers.

Impact: This would save many lives of soldier's from deadly combat.

My second contention is that it is more efficient. The expenses of war can amount to great cost. The use of targeted killing can prevent war from even beginning. The United States spent on average about one trillion dollars just on the war in Iraq. With targeted killing the war in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. These wars could've had much reduced casualties. For example the special operation that killed Osama bin Laden was the use of targeted killing. The few Navy SEALs who carried out the operation encountered very little resistance and no causalities. Osama bin Laden was killed just by a few shots to his body and the terrorist leader was killed.

Impact: Money and lives can be saved with the use of targeted killing.

My last contention is that the use of targeted killing and technology can save lives and money. With today's technology the military can use remote controlled planes and guided missiles to kill a targeted without having to put troops on the front lines to kill just one target. A solider can be controlling the device from a safe location far away without ever seeing the enemy face to face.

Targeted killing is not a morally permissible for foreign policy.
Who is to say all the targets that have or will be killed were killed for legtimate reasons.
the cases is that nation only follows its leader. Germany right before WW2, they were in a depression with a really bad economy. unforgettably enough Hitler did step in as a hero in their eyes. than the rest is history

My next argument is how targeted killing is a faster way to win a war. Than how is that country looked at after? my first example is Obama.http://www.uruknet.info... this website talks about how Obama Targeted killing from his Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel hat actually has a memo trying to justify targeted killing. this memo is not for public to see. its true though because you just have to look at what states are doing with targeted killing. Saying we do look at this memo their is no way have a persuasive legal argument respecting the fundamental human rights and humanitarian law at issue. thinking of it like that i would ask myself as a person is targeted killing a appropriated way to take on a major issue. It shows how strong a true leader is an how he wants him and his nation to be looked at. think of this in two ways would you want to befriend a nation who trying to kill everyone through assassination. Rather just keep your self at a neutral understanding where your are not for or against what they really say. watching their every move though because that one time they can get a mistaken target that could most possibly start another world war.
defining targeted killing is the killing of individuals not close to the battle zones using military missiles, bombs and commando raids. Defining it like that shows that getting certain Target is use for many means. This is showing us how far a nation would go to get that target even if its killing innocent bystanders.
From the same website For Obama's administration alone over 2,200 persons have been estimated to have been killed in the three years in Pakistan alone. they are still getting a count for the Yemen that we probably wont now about for awhile. honestly the numbers are going to get worst at least in a war a country can defend themselves for something they believe.http://www.washingtonpost.com...
IN this website Greg Miller talks about how no other president uses drones to seek a target it out. It does save lots of pilots but at what real cost. First being looked at as a weak leader for assassination towards other country. Second these drones being maid so rapid is a way of showing how it does not matter if its legal because its so lethal. This is my opening argument on the topic sorry that i took it too the last min to respond. i just been really busy with work and school but i am willing to go through the five rounds good luck.